It’s easy to think of health technology assessment (HTA) reimbursement decisions as boiling down to a simple a “Yes” (Recommend) or “No” (Do Not Recommend). In fact, there are often multiple dimensions to the outcomes of HTA agency reviews. Failure to take the nuances of these decisions into account when developing a market access strategy can have significant impact on everything from clinical trial design, building an economic model, to projecting revenue and beyond. Working with an accurate and precise classification of a decision, and taking into account the context of that decision, enables manufacturers to use decision qualifications, such as restrictions, to develop a well-informed strategic blueprint for market access.
The recent and frequent outcry over expensive drugs has made evident the gap in the United States’ healthcare system. While no perfect system exists, other countries have health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to evaluate efficacy and/or cost-effectiveness and inform reimbursement decisions.
What might the U.S. learn from countries like England, Germany, and France in structuring a methodology for evaluating drugs?
G-BA and NICE are two influential health technology assessment (HTA) agencies: both have large markets for pharmaceuticals, many countries look to Germany for reference pricing, and NICE decisions are referenced in other agencies’ assessments.
The product team at Context Matters is always working on ways to improve our customers’ subscriptions. This year alone we’ve published new data from over 2,000 HTA reviews and regulatory labels and deployed over 130 updates to our application and data model. Today, I’d like to highlight some of the capabilities our customers can now use and provide a preview of what we’re working on this spring.